Science & Research – Food Safety Newshttp://www.foodsafetynews.com
Breaking news for everyone's consumptionMon, 19 Mar 2018 05:40:42 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.490 percent of farmers in Ireland unaware of animal pathogenshttp://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/03/survey-shows-farmers-in-ireland-need-more-education-on-animal-to-human-infections/
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/03/survey-shows-farmers-in-ireland-need-more-education-on-animal-to-human-infections/#respondTue, 13 Mar 2018 04:00:28 +0000http://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=148877Continue Reading]]>Nine out of 10 farmers in Ireland are unaware that healthy animals can be a source of infection people, including their families. More than half don’t know that they can pick up diseases from sick poultry or pets, according to a survey.

Further, more than 40 percent of more than 1,000 Irish farmers surveyed drink unpasteurized milk at least once a week, indicating they continue to potentially expose themselves and their families to pathogenic organisms in their milk, The Irish Examiner reported.

The survey done to determine farmers’ knowledge of the risk of spread of infection was published in the journal Epidemiology and Infection. It found that farmers younger than 45 are more likely than older farmers to know what zoonosis is – the possibility of catching an infection from healthy or sick livestock and pets.

According to Epi-Insight, an online publication from the Health Protection Surveillance Center, Ireland’s agency for the surveillance of communicable diseases, 60 percent of all pathogens that make people sick — viruses, bacteria, prion or funguses — are zoonotic, meaning they can be transmitted naturally from vertebrate animals to humans.

Zoonoses are transmitted by consuming contaminated foods or beverages, bites, scratches, inhalation or skin contact. Indirect transmission can take place through contact with contaminated clothing or shoes, animal bedding, flooring, barriers and other environmental surfaces such as countertops.

The survey did show that farmers in Ireland know the risk to pregnant women of infection from birthing animals is high – 88 percent. Farmers older than 45 are more likely to identify aborting animals as a source of infection in people.

Of the farmers surveyed, 93 percent reported washing their hands before eating or smoking while on the farm. But a third said they don’t wear jumpsuits or wet gear while working. Of those who do wear protective clothing, nearly one quarter said they don’t take it off before going into their homes. The Food Safety Authority of Ireland recommends that farm work clothes or footwear not be worn in the home because they can spread E. coli and other pathogens and residues.

Almost three-quarters of 1,044 farmers surveyed said they get their drinking water from private wells, and of those, 62 percent said they test that water less than once a year.

The Environmental Protection Agency of Ireland has reported that 25 percent of groundwater supplies there are contaminated with fecal coliforms. It recommends annual testing of private well water for bacterial contamination.

The survey results illustrate the need for further education to increase the awareness of potential biohazards from livestock and practical measures that can be taken to mitigate the risk of zoonotic infection, according to the report by Sarah Doyle and Marrita Mahon of Health Protection Surveillance Center South East.

“The fact that most farmers accessed information on diseases on the farm from multiple sources, suggests that a multi-faceted, One Health approach to infectious disease prevention in the farming community is merited,” they said.

One Health is a unified human and veterinary approach to combat zoonotic diseases.

Laura Strawn of Virginia Tech was one of the workshop presenters at the 2017 IAFP conference in Tampa. Her research interests focus on enhanced microbial safety of produce production at both the pre- and post-harvest level.

The International Association for Food Protection (IAFP) has announced the workshop lineup for its annual conference, set for this summer, and will begin taking workshop registrations March 20.

The event is set for July 8-11 in Salt Lake City.

The IAFP hosts the annual event to provide information on current and emerging food safety issues, the latest science, and innovative solutions to new and recurring problems. The conference provides the opportunity to network with thousands of food safety professionals from academia, government and industry from around the globe. Additionally, attendees can register to attend one or more of the following conference workshops:

Topics include: An Introduction to Biofilms and Laboratory Growth Reactors, Adapting Standardized Biofilm Growth Methods for Other Bacteria, Important Considerations for Lab Studies with Biofilm, Keepin’ it Real: The Statistical R’s of Biofilm Methods, Visualizing Treatment Impacts on Biofilm, Now You’ve Got It, What Do You Do With It

Presenters include representatives from MSU Center for Biofilm Engineering

Fifty-two countries are represented by 1,200 delegates at the four-day conference organized by the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI).

Delegates have been discussing the most important issues and trends in food safety, focusing on more collaboration between government regulators and the private sector in advancing food safety and creating better lives for consumers everywhere.

At this year’s Government to Business (G2B) meeting, the GFSI board was joined by 40 organizations representing 25 countries and five IGOs. Chairing the meeting were Paul Mayers, vice president of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Mika Yokota, director of the Food Industrial Corporate Affairs Office of the Food Industry Affairs Bureau, and Mike Robach, chairman of the GFSI board.

New partnerships were announced that will enable the public and private sectors to drive progress on operational approaches to food safety culture and expand capacity based on the GFSI’s Global Markets Programme, a framework for implementing robust food safety systems in developing markets.

GFSI and the Chilean food safety and quality agency, ACHIPA, confirmed a strategic partnership focused on piloting operational approaches on food safety culture, building food safety capacity in Chilean facilities based on the GFSI’s Global Markets Programme and identifying opportunities for collaboration at the regional and global levels. The agreement, confirmed by the Chilean Ministry of Agriculture, is part of GFSI’s mission to build more public-private partnerships between companies, government regulators and intergovernmental organizations, reducing trade barriers and harmonizing global food safety legislation.

Governments have observed that closer partnerships with businesses provide them with access to private-sector expertise and best practices. GFSI said.

“Deepening partnerships with food safety regulators is a critical part of advancing sustainable food safety on a global scale,” said ACHIPIA head Michel Leporati. “In today’s complex global food supply ecosystem, any one company or country in isolation cannot achieve food safety objectives. The partnership is essential for Chile.”

Said Erich Jaeger, vice president of food safety for Walmart Chile and Argentina and leader of the GFSI Chile team: “The partnership will provide all parties with guidance through the Global Markets Programme, supporting Chilean companies with underdeveloped food safety systems and buyers, as well as helping to address food safety challenges. The agreement will also reduce hazards and enhance market access through enrolment in the GFSI’s recognized certification programmes.”

“This year’s Global Food Safety Conference marks a turning point for strengthening relationships between governments and the private sector,” said Robach, who is vice president of corporate food safety, quality and regulatory affairs for Cargill. “As chair of the GFSI board, I am proud to see the growing dialogue GFSI is leading. This kind of public-private collaboration is unprecedented. 10 years ago this would have been almost unthinkable but the support we’re seeing around the world now is signaling a big, positive change”.

The GFSI brings together key actors of the food industry to collaborate on continuous improvement in food safety management systems around the world. With a vision of safe food for consumers everywhere, food industry leaders created GFSI in 2000 to find collaborative solutions to collective concerns, notably to reduce food safety risks, audit duplication and costs while building trust throughout the supply chain. The GFSI community works on a volunteer basis and is comprised of the world’s leading food safety experts from retail, manufacturing and food service companies, as well as international organizations, governments, academia and service providers. GFSI is powered by The Consumer Goods Forum (CGF), a global industry network focused on supporting Better Lives Through Better Business.

CGF is a global, parity-based industry network driven by its members to encourage global adoption of practices and standards that serve the consumer goods industry worldwide. It brings together CEOs and senior management of some 400 retailers, manufacturers, service providers and other stakeholders across 70 countries, and it reflects the diversity of the industry in geography, size, product category and format.

]]>http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/03/public-private-partnerships-in-the-spotlight-at-2018-global-food-safety-conference-kick-off/feed/025 years marked by changehttp://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/03/a-silver-anniversary-marked-by-change/
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/03/a-silver-anniversary-marked-by-change/#respondTue, 06 Mar 2018 05:00:34 +0000http://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=148714Continue Reading]]>Editor’s note: This opinion column by Richard Raymond was originally published by feedstuffs.com and is reprinted here with permission.

Lives were lost but because of the losses many more lives have subsequently been lived happily and disease free, at least free of diseases spread by contaminated food.

Twenty-five years ago, Riley Detwiler of Bellingham, WA, died, the last of the four children who passed away as a result of the 1993 Jack-in-the-Box E. coli O157:H7 outbreak, sometimes referred to by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as the Western states outbreak.

Riley had never eaten a hamburger. He was secondarily infected by a classmate in his preschool who had the infection but his parents did not know it yet.

There had been prior outbreaks from these bacteria, but none as extensive as this one which became infamous and made Bill Marler synonymous with foodborne illnesses.

But the past is behind us, and I want to take a few minutes on this unhappy anniversary to make note of the changes that came about in the world of food safety as a result of it. Lives were lost but because of the losses many more lives have subsequently been lived happily and disease free, at least free of diseases spread by contaminated food.

The industry and the regulators made changes, some of which, in no particular order, were:

Probably first and foremost, E. coli O157:H7 was declared an adulterant in ground beef, announced by Mike Taylor, then the acting undersecretary for food safety at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, at an annual meeting of the American Meat Institute, a move which took industry by total surprise. It also assured that the then acting undersecretary for food safety at USDA would never be Senate confirmed.

E. coli O157:H7 was upgraded to reportable disease status at all state health departments.

After losing a court battle to reverse Taylor’s decision, the meat industry declared that food safety and public health measures were not proprietary properties.

Hot steam vacuum treatment of carcasses was invented and refined by scientists at the Meat Animal Research Center in Clay Center, Neb., a very small town boasting more PhDs per capita than any other town in the U.S.

Pulse Field Gel Electrophoresis (PFGE) was developed by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and shortly became a part of every state health department laboratory performing testing of human specimens in suspected cases of foodborne illnesses. It is also used to fingerprint bacteria grown from meat and poultry samples. PFGE allows what used to appear to be isolated cases of foodborne illnesses to be developed into clusters, enabling investigators to more quickly isolate the cause of the outbreak and regulators to remove contaminated product from stores and hopefully kitchens.

Food & Drug Administration increased the recommended temperature for cooking ground beef from 140 degrees F to 155 degrees. The current USDA recommendation is to cook to 160 degrees using a digital thermometer.

In 1997, following the Hudson Foods recall, and at the request of Nebraska’s Gov. Ben Nelson, the NCBA created BIFSCo (Beef Industry Food Safety Council). BIFSCo coordinates a broad effort to solve pathogen issues, focusing on research prioritization and information dissemination.

Then in 2003, BIFSCo sponsored the first beef safety summit, an annual event since then. At the first summit attendees signed an industry food safety pledge and committed to openly share data and information.

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Assn. (NCBA) created a blue ribbon task force headed by old friend Bo Reagan, then with the National Live Stock & Meat Board, a predecessor organization to NCBA where he became vice president of research and knowledge management at NCBA, to fund research into ways to reduce E coli in cattle and slaughterhouses. Bo has since retired from NCBA and now lives just a few miles north of me.

The USDA’s Food Safety & Inspection System (FSIS) went from the nearly 100-year-old, sniff-and-poke inspection system to one designed to prevent contamination by invisible pathogens like E. coli O157:H7 called HACCP, Hazards Analysis and Critical Control Points, that put more of the burden on the individual facilities.

FSIS also initiated testing for E coli O157:H7 in ground beef, later moving the testing to combo bins.

Industry also ramped up its own testing of ground beef in plants and could remove and cook or discard contaminated runs. Reporting of industry positives and presumptive positives has never been mandated, and few know what the exact contamination rate of ground beef is. FSIS only tests product after industry has tested and removed known problematic ground beef.

In spite of criticism from the industry, the FSIS introduced consumer education programs about the potential dangers in ground beef and safe handling and proper cooking instructions. Despite this effort many restaurants’ wait staff continue to this day to ask “How do you want your burger cooked” and my wife and daughter answer “medium.” AARGH!

Irradiation of ground beef was made routine by Schwann’s and Omaha Steaks and offered as an option at Wegman’s.

Safe Tables Our Priority, affectionately known as STOP, was formed representing mostly families who had lost a child to an E. coli O157:H7 infection but fighting to “prevent Americans from becoming ill and dying from foodborne illness.” The national organization is now known as STOP Foodborne Illness. Nancy Donley, who lost her only child to an E. coli infection, was the president of STOP when I was with the FSIS at USDA.

FSIS began identifying retail outlets where contaminated meat and poultry were sold in 2008 to help consumers be more aware if they had eaten contaminated product or still had it in their refrigerator or freezer.

Recently, FSIS has begun attempting to trace back to the source when a further downstream processor has a ground beef sample test positive for E. coli O157:H7

Six other non-O157 STECs have been added to the list of adulterants in recent years by FSIS.

Some packers now use a phage spray on cattle in holding pens, others use hide washes before the knock box to reduce fecal contamination.

E. coli vaccines have been developed and gained FDA approval, but are in limited use because of the added cost.

I am certain I have left out a few critical changes, as most were made well before my attention turned from delivering babies to food safety. Please add your thoughts in the comment section.

]]>http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/03/a-silver-anniversary-marked-by-change/feed/0Antimicrobial resistance in food animals threatens peoplehttp://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/03/european-agencies-say-antimicrobial-resistance-in-zoonotic-bacteria-remains-high-in-humans-animals-and-food/
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/03/european-agencies-say-antimicrobial-resistance-in-zoonotic-bacteria-remains-high-in-humans-animals-and-food/#respondThu, 01 Mar 2018 05:00:43 +0000http://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=148483Continue Reading]]>Bacteria from humans and animals continue to show resistance to antimicrobials, which is one of the world’s biggest threats to public health and often involves the food chain according to a new report from two European public health agencies.

The report from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) highlights the impact of the reduced effectiveness of treatment options for people and animals raised for food.

According to the World Health Organization, antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is the ability of microorganisms such as bacteria, viruses and parasites to block the effectiveness of antimicrobial medicines, which include antibiotics, antivirals and antimalarials. As a result, standard treatments become ineffective, infections persist and can easily spread.

The new report from EFSA and ECDC focuses on zoonotic resistance, which involves infections and diseases that can be transmitted from animals to people or, more specifically, a disease that normally exists in animals but that can infect humans. There are many zoonotic diseases, including anthrax, rabies, tularemia and West Nile virus. Much of human exposure to infectious disease has been zoonotic. Bubonic plague is a zoonotic disease, as are Salmonellosis, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, and Lyme disease.

In the wake of the report’s release, European Commissioner for Health and Food Safety Vytenis Andriukaitis reaffirmed his commitment to tackle antimicrobial resistance.

“Levels of antimicrobial resistance still differ significantly from one EU country to another,” Andriukaitis said.

“To win the fight, we need to join our efforts and implement stringent policies on the use of antibiotics across sectors. It is vital that we all renew our commitment to fight antimicrobial resistance by focusing on the key areas set out in the EU One Health Action Plan against antimicrobial resistance.”

Among the new findings, based on data from 2016, is the detection of resistance to carbapenems in poultry. The class of antibiotics is not authorized for use in animals.

“The detection of resistance to carbapenems in poultry and to linezolid in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in pigs is alarming because these antibiotics are used in humans to treat serious infections,” said Marta Hugas, EFSA’s chief scientist. “It is important that risk managers follow up on these findings.”

Mike Catchpole, ECDC’s chief scientist also expressed concern and said progress is not being made in the fight against the super bugs.

“We are concerned to see that Salmonella and Campylobacter bacteria in humans show high levels of antimicrobial resistance,” Catchpole said.

“The fact that we keep detecting multidrug-resistant bacteria means that the situation is not improving. We need to investigate the origins and prevent the spread of highly resistant strains, such as ESBL-producing Salmonella Kentucky”.

In humansOne out of four infections in humans are caused by Salmonella bacteria that show resistance to three or more antimicrobial medications commonly used in human and animal medicine. The proportion is significantly higher in Salmonella Kentucky and Salmonella Infantis, 76.3 percent and 39.4 percent respectively.

For the first time, ESBL-producing Salmonella Kentucky with high resistance to ciprofloxacin has been detected in four countries, according to the report. These bacteria cannot be treated with critically important antibiotics.

Campylobacter bacteria, which cause the most common foodborne illnesses in the EU, show high resistance to widely used antibiotics, including ciprofloxacin resistance in 54.6 percent of Campylobacter jejuni and in 63.8 percent of Campylobacter coli; and tetracyline resistance in 42.8 percent of Campylobacter jejuni and in 64.8 percent of Campylobacter coli.

In some countries at least one in three Campylobacter coli infections were multidrug-resistant to important antibiotics, leaving very few treatment options for severe infections.

In animals and foodsResistance to carbapenem antibiotics was detected at very low levels in poultry and in chicken meat in two EU member states. Carbapenems are used to treat serious infections in humans and are not authorized for use in animals.

Combined clinical resistance to critically important antimicrobials was observed at low to very low levels, ranging from 0.2 percent to 1 percent, in Salmonella, Campylobacter and E. coli in poultry. Resistance to colistin was observed at 2 percent in Salmonella and E. Coli in poultry.

Prevalence of ESBL-producing E. coli in poultry varies markedly between the EU member states, from less than 10 percent to more than 70 percent. Bacteria that produce ESBL enzymes show multi-drug resistance to β-lactam antibiotics – a class of broad spectrum antibiotics that includes penicillin derivatives, cephalosporins and carbapenems. This is the first time the presence of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing E. coli was monitored in poultry and poultry meat.

Both of the recalls were triggered by the Michigan Department of Agriculture’s collection of retail samples from a single batch of each product, according to the recall notices. Both companies’ products tested positive for Salmonella contamination. There have been no illnesses reported to date in relation to either of the recalled pet food products.

The recalls are of particular public health concern because of the potential hazard to both human and animal health, according to the FDA’s advisory.

People who have handled the dog food are at risk of Salmonella infection and are advised to seek medical attention immediately if they develop symptoms of Salmonellosis. Symptoms can include nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, diarrhea that is watery or bloody, fever and headache.

According to the recall posted on the FDA’s website, the implicated product was distributed in the continental U.S. through independent retailers and via online retailers Chewys.com and Amazon.com through direct delivery.

Consumers can identify the affected products by looking for the following label information: “Vital Essentials Freeze-Dried Beef Nibblets Entrée for Dogs” with “Lot #13753.”

Me Crunchy Beef Delight Pet treats. The recalled “Treat Me Crunchy Beef Delight” products were distributed in the continental U.S. via online retailer Chewy.com and TruDog.com through direct delivery, according to the recall on the FDA’s website.

The affected product can be identified by looking for the following label information: “Treat Me Crunchy Beef Delight” with “Lot # 20190514 13753.”

FDA research has previously shown pet food problemsAn FDA study unrelated to this recall found that raw pet food was more likely to be contaminated with Salmonella or Listeria compared to non-raw pet foods. In addition to Salmonella, handling raw pet food can expose pet owners to parasites, viruses and bacteria including E. coli, Campylobacter and Listeria.

The FDA study, which ran from October 2010 through July 2012, tested more than 1,000 samples of pet foods and pet treats for foodborne bacteria, including Salmonella. Of the 196 samples of raw pet food tested during the study, 15 were positive for Salmonella.

In 2013, FDA issued a “Compliance Policy Guide for Salmonella in Food for Animals,” affirming a zero-tolerance policy for Salmonella in pet food due to the risk to human health.

Healthy eating enthusiasts may want to reconsider their protein powder choices in light of a new study that shows 40 percent of 134 brands tested have elevated levels of heavy metals, with certified organic products twice as likely to contain heavy metals as non-organic powders.

The 2018 study by the Denver-based Clean Label Project used the independent analytical chemistry laboratory Ellipse Analytics to test the animal- and plant-based protein powders. Clean Label selected and purchased the powders from retail store shelves and from online sources.

In addition to heavy metals, the research project included testing for BPA, a known endocrine disruptor. Results showed 55 percent of powders tested had measurable levels of BPA. Of the 134 tested powders, 28 contained twice the regulatory limit of 3 micrograms of BPA. One contained more than 25 times the allowed level of BPA in just one serving.

The specific products tested in the Clean Label study are ranked the top sellers, according to statistics from Nielsen and the Amazon.com best-seller list. According to the research report released today, of the 134 products tested, 53 were found to have “substantially elevated” levels of the following heavy metals.

Lead

Mercury

Cadmium

Arsenic

BPA

In addition to finding that the products certified organic by the U.S. Department of Agriculture are twice as likely to contain high levels of heavy metals as non-organic protein powders, the study found other surprising statistics about plant-based protein powders.

75 percent had measurable levels of lead.

Each contained on average twice the amount of lead per serving as other products.

In addition to lead, the plant powders in several cases contained mercury, cadmium and arsenic above health-based guidelines.

Clean Label Project Director Jackie Bowen said the toxins found in the plant products could put people who follow vegetarian diets at heightened risk of health issues if they are regularly consuming the plant-based powders. The powders had, on average, twice the amount of lead per serving of other products.

The director of operations and quality at the testing laboratory Ellipse Analytics said there could be several explanations as to why the powders have excessive levels of heavy metals.

“This could be due to the locations where the protein powder manufacturers’ plant ingredients are sourced having contaminated soil. This is especially true in the United States where there may be a higher incidence of heavy metals in the soil of some regions.”

Good news coming out of the research was the finding that no egg-based protein powders tested contained lead.

The study data was analyzed by Clean Label Project’s Technical Advisory Board of statisticians, epidemiologists, food safety scientists and registered dietitians before being published. The study is in process of being peer-reviewed.

Study results on the nonprofit’s website are presented in a five-star rating system that names each product tested and shows how contaminated it is compared to other products in the same study. More than 40 of the products tested only received one star.

]]>http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/02/heavy-metals-found-in-40-percent-of-protein-powders-tested/feed/0Raw milk test in Pennsylvania prompts Campylobacter warninghttp://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/02/raw-milk-test-in-pennsylvania-prompts-campylobacter-warning/
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/02/raw-milk-test-in-pennsylvania-prompts-campylobacter-warning/#respondTue, 27 Feb 2018 05:01:32 +0000http://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=148418Continue Reading]]>Pennsylvania officials warned consumers earlier this month that they should immediately discard all raw milk from Conoco View Dairy because it was contaminated with Campylobacter, which can cause serious infections and is killed by pasteurization.

As of Monday, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, which issued the warning Feb. 15, had not received any reports of confirmed Campylobacter infections in connection with the unpasteurized, raw milk from the Perry County dairy, said a department spokeswoman.

All of the implicated milk was labeled with a sell-by date of Feb. 16.

While it is unlikely people still have any of the unpasteurized milk in their homes, consumers should monitor themselves and children who drank the milk for symptoms of Campylobacter infection. It can take several days after exposure for symptoms to develop.

Symptoms usually include diarrhea, fever, and abdominal cramps. The diarrhea is often bloody and may be accompanied by nausea and vomiting, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Campylobacter infections are particularly dangerous for children, especially if they are younger than 5 years, according to the CDC and the Pennsylvania Department of Health.

“In the years 2007 to 2011, 15 raw milk-related outbreaks were reported in Pennsylvania; 233 persons were confirmed with illness as a result of these outbreaks and 11 were hospitalized,” according to a report from the state health department.

“During this time, only one outbreak associated with pasteurized milk was reported; 16 persons with confirmed illness were identified.”

In the referenced raw milk outbreaks, 45 percent of the victims were less than 18 years old; 17 percent were younger 5, according to the Pennsylvania report.

“This is very important because children rely on adults for their food choices,” according to the state health department’s 2012 report.

Photo illustration

2012’s Campylobacter outbreakFollowing the string of outbreaks from 2007-2011, a four-state outbreak of Campylobacter infections was traced to a Pennsylvania raw milk dairy in 2012 — even though the interstate sale of raw milk is prohibited by federal law.

The state’s health department recorded 81 culture-confirmed victims, “plus many more ‘probable’ cases in persons whose illness was not confirmed by culture,” according to the department. “This was the largest raw milk outbreak in Pennsylvania in recent history.”

Less than half of the states allow sales of raw milk, with state statutes limiting sales only to herd-share owners. Pennsylvania is one of the few states that allow the retail sale of unpasteurized milk. However, the state health department’s website warns about the dangers of consuming raw milk, describing various bacteria and viruses often found in it.

States lawmakers expressed similar concern by requiring warning labels on raw milk sold in the state. Pennsylvania’s raw milk statute suggests the following warning label language:

“Raw milk has not been processed to remove pathogens that can cause illness. The consumption of raw milk may significantly increase the risk of foodborne illness in persons who consume it — particularly with respect to certain highly-susceptible populations such as preschool-age children, older adults, pregnant women, persons experiencing illness, and other people with weakened immune systems.”

The state health department’s raw milk report after the 2012 outbreak acknowledges that some people believe unpasteurized milk and products made with it have health benefits. But the Pennsylvania public health officials cautioned that there is not peer-reviewed, scientific research to support those claims.

“… the claims that raw milk helps improve certain illnesses and conditions are anecdotal and have not been borne out by scientific studies,” according to Pennsylvania’s report.

]]>http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/02/raw-milk-test-in-pennsylvania-prompts-campylobacter-warning/feed/0HACCP Principles: No. 1 conduct a hazard analysis http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/02/haccp-principles-no-1-conduct-a-hazard-analysis/
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/02/haccp-principles-no-1-conduct-a-hazard-analysis/#respondMon, 26 Feb 2018 16:27:15 +0000http://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=148410Continue Reading]]>Editor’s note: This is the first of five articles on Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points sponsored by PAR Technologies. There are seven HACCP principles outlined by the FDA to serve as a guideline to creating a systematic approach in the identification, evaluation and control of food safety hazards.

Since the early ’90s, meat, egg and high-risk food product companies have been mandated to use hazard analysis critical control points, best known as HACCP, to create cohesive food safety plans.

“HACCP is comprised of seven principles as a structured way for food companies to go through the process of creating a food safety plan to identify which things are most important to keep products safe,” explains Donna Schaffner, independent HACCP consultant microbiologist and the Associate Director of Food Safety, Quality Assurance and Training for Rutgers Food Innovation Center.

“Now, with preventative food regulations put into place through the Food Safety Modernization Act, things that aren’t considered high risk now must have a food safety prevention plan which includes HACCP.”

Principle 1: Conduct a hazard analysisWhen going through HACCP, the first step is to identify which areas along the entire production chain are at risk of causing injury or illness if not controlled properly.

“This requires a close look at the flow diagram of a company – from receiving, storage, preparation, processing, packaging, storage and shipping out,” explains Schaffner. “Within this analysis, you’re looking for physical, chemical and biological hazards.”

For example, physical hazards in a ground beef plant, may include metal shavings off worn grinding equipment or pieces of bone fragment.

“Things like plastic and metal can contaminate meat from something as simple as an ink pen falling from behind an employee’s pocket while leaning over a container or a screw coming off a piece of grinding equipment,” explains Schaffner. “But the utilization of metal detectors and scanners can be used to ensure foreign objects don’t end up in the product.”

According to Schaffner, while chemical hazards are typically viewed as food that has been exposed to substances such as machine cleaning disinfectants, they can also include allergens and food exposed to radiation.

“If a ground beef plant is processing plain hamburger patties, but also using the same equipment to make meatloaf which includes allergen ingredients, there must be strategic controls to keep allergen containers in a place where they won’t accidentally contaminate the plain beef, and properly clean and swab test equipment between uses,” says Schaffner.

It’s also important for food companies to pay attention to the events surrounding their ingredient sources, adds Schaffner. For example, in the event of a radiological disaster, an animal being raised for human consumption may have high levels of radiation.

“It’s not just food products that may be contaminated,” she explains. “If companies are buying in packaging which have been sterilized with radiation, they need to make sure the packages haven’t been overexposed.”

Schaffner says the hardest hazards to identify are biological due to opportunity for pathogen growth to occur at anytime during the processing chain.

“Even if the entire ground beef processing facility is following protocol to control pathological growth, the incoming beef product may have been contaminated in the slaughter facility. There are several steps taken to minimize contamination, such as rinsing bigger pieces of meat before going into the grinder and keeping temperatures a low enough level to inhibit bacteria growth,” she explains.

“Biological hazards have the ability to quickly compromise the safety of a food product and must be monitored.”

Create a HACCP teamOne of the biggest challenges Schaffner sees food companies face when conducting a hazard analysis is lack of expertise to adequately assess all the components along the processing chain. To overcome this, it is essential a company form a HACCP team with representatives in each sector of the processing chain working together to develop, implement and maintain HACCP.

“The plant engineer is going to pick up on a potential hazard that someone in shipping would have missed. And if a company doesn’t have someone in-house to adequately assess a portion of a company, like a microbiologist for recognizing biological hazards or sanitation specialist, they need to bring someone in,” she explains.

“It’s also important to note it’s legally required that at least one person on the HACCP team has a HACCP training certificate to ensure they are adequately trained in developing a HACCP system.”

The awards will be presented during this year’s annual meeting, which is set for July 8-11 in Salt Lake City, Utah.

The IAFP provides more than 4,000 food safety professionals around the world with a forum to exchange information on protecting the food supply.

Each year, the IAFP hosts the conference to provide information on current and emerging food safety issues, the latest science, innovative solutions to new and recurring problems, and the opportunity to network with thousands of food safety professionals from around the globe.

The event has grown to become the leading food safety conference worldwide, with attendance of more than 3,600 people from industry, academia and government from six continents.

Exhibits include the latest in available technologies and leading experts will present information about a variety of topics.

]]>http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/02/iafp-extends-deadline-for-some-2018-food-safety-awards/feed/0EFSA’s lumpy skin disease recommendation shows promisehttp://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/02/efsas-lumpy-skin-disease-recommendation-shows-promise/
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/02/efsas-lumpy-skin-disease-recommendation-shows-promise/#respondThu, 22 Feb 2018 05:00:17 +0000http://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=148166Continue Reading]]>The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) reports vaccines are working against lumpy skin disease but says the ailment has not been eliminated. According to EFSA, outbreaks of lumpy skin disease (LSD) in the Balkan region fell dramatically by 95 percent from 7,483 in 2016 to 385 in 2017.

The figures confirm that vaccination of cattle – recommended by EFSA in 2016 – is the most effective way to contain the disease, according to the report.

Lumpy skin disease is an infectious, eruptive, occasionally fatal disease of cattle characterized by nodules on the skin and other parts of the body. Secondary bacterial infection often aggravates the condition. It is a reportable disease in the United States, meaning veterinarians must notify state authorities when LSD is discovered. According to Farmer’s Weekly, symptoms of LSD include the following:

Skin nodules and ulcers ranging from 0.5 cm to 5 cm in size and can vary from a few to hundreds. They occur anywhere on the skin, including the nose, udder and vulva in cows, and the scrotum in bulls;

Legs become swollen and develop sores;

Enlarged lymph nodes;

Pneumonia/coughing as a result of infection of the respiratory tract;

Nasal discharge;

Infertility;

Mastitis, reducing milk production;

Fever;

Emaciation;

Excessive salivation.

The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) says LSD is endemic in most African countries and reports it has spread rapidly through the Middle East, south-east Europe, the Balkans, Caucasus, Russia, and Kazakhstan. It is caused by lumpy skin disease virus (LSDV), a virus from the family Poxviridae, genus Capripoxvirus. Sheeppox virus and Goatpox virus are the two other virus species in this genus.

The recently published EFSA report gives an update on the occurrence of LSD and the effectiveness of vaccination. It also analyses the risk factors for its spread in south-eastern Europe. The report is based on data collected by affected countries and those at risk.

However, Alessandro Broglia, a veterinarian at EFSA, warned: “Even if the number of outbreaks has decreased significantly, the disease has not been eliminated from the region yet and therefore we need to remain vigilant.”

In 2017 most of the outbreaks – 379 out of 385 – were reported in areas of Albania where the vaccination program had not yet been completed. Few outbreaks occurred elsewhere, with two in Greece and four in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

One of the factors responsible for the spread of LSD is an increase in the number of insects that transmit the disease, as a result of warm temperatures. Experts also concluded that in Greece the risk of infection is six times higher among farm animals that have access to outdoor space than in those kept indoors. This is because the former group is more exposed to transmitting insects.

EFSA says the cooperation and commitment of countries involved in the data collection were crucial for the report. EFSA used data provided by Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Greece, Kosovo, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey.

]]>http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/02/efsas-lumpy-skin-disease-recommendation-shows-promise/feed/0FDA updates spice risk profile; 7,200 samples analyzedhttp://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/02/fda-updates-spice-risk-profile/
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/02/fda-updates-spice-risk-profile/#respondWed, 21 Feb 2018 05:01:11 +0000http://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=148211Continue Reading]]>Four years ago, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration released a draft risk profile on the public health dangers associated with spices, identifying the presence of pathogens such as Salmonella and filth in general. It described efforts to reduce the public health risk posed by consumption of contaminated spices and identified control options to prevent contamination.

Earlier this month, the FDA announced the availability of an updated risk profile on pathogens and filth in spice. The 2017 Risk Profile: Pathogens and Filth in Spices (2017) includes data from an FDA survey that evaluated Salmonella prevalence and aerobic plate counts in packaged dried spices offered for sale at retail establishments in the U.S.

The survey showed that the prevalence of Salmonella in nine out of 11 types of retail spices in the U.S. was significantly lower than that for shipments of spices at import, according to a summary published by the National Law Review. The findings from the study were based on more than 7,000 retail samples of 11 different spice types that were collected November 2013-September 2014 and October 2014-March 2015.

The FDA pointed out that the findings from its recently published survey are consistent with public comments from the domestic food industry stating that responsible manufacturers apply a pathogen reduction treatment to many spices after they enter the U.S. but prior to retail sale.

The FDA reported that the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), signed into law in 2011, enables the agency to better protect public health by strengthening the food safety system and to focus more on preventing food safety problems rather than relying primarily on reacting to problems after they occur.

The original report contains a complete description of the study, data collected and results, including information about Salmonella outbreaks linked to spices.

The study included 7,250 retail samples of dried spices sold in the United States. The retail study surveyed:

basil leaf in whole, ground, crushed or flake forms;

black pepper in whole, ground or cracked forms;

ground coriander seed;

whole or ground cumin seed;

curry powder in ground mixture of spices;

dehydrated garlic as powder, granules or flakes;

oregano leaf in whole, ground, crushed or flake form;

paprika, which is always ground;

hot red pepper such as chili and cayenne in ground, cracked, crushed or flake form;

sesame seed that was whole, not roasted or toasted and not black; and

white pepper in ground or cracked form.

For each of the 11 types examined, estimated prevalence in 125-gram samples of spices analyzed was less than 1 percent. No positive samples were found for cumin (whole/ground/cracked), sesame seed (whole) or white pepper (ground). This table shows the estimated Salmonella prevalence (125 g) in samples collected November 2013-September 2014 or October 2014-March 2015.

Of particular interest in this study, the FDA said, was whether the Salmonella prevalence estimates for each spice type at the point of entry to the United States were different from those for the same spice type at the point of retail purchase by U.S. consumers, particularly for the spices where the U.S. supply is overwhelmingly imported, as is the case for at least seven of the spices examined: basil, black pepper, coriander, cumin, curry powder, oregano and white pepper.

For red pepper, paprika and sesame seed, imports are also the major source of the U.S. supply but domestic production is significant. The Salmonella prevalence estimates for spices offered for sale at retail establishments for all of the spice types examined except dehydrated garlic and basil (for which statistical power was limited) were significantly smaller than estimates for shipments of imported spice offered for entry.

The results of this study are consistent with the assumption that most bulk shipments of spice undergo a pathogen reduction treatment following entry to the United States and prior to releasing for retail sale. No Salmonella-positive samples were found for cumin, sesame seed or white pepper.

]]>http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/02/fda-updates-spice-risk-profile/feed/0Scientists urge regulators to revisit 60-day rule for raw goudahttp://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/02/scientists-urge-regulators-to-revisit-60-day-rule-for-raw-gouda/
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/02/scientists-urge-regulators-to-revisit-60-day-rule-for-raw-gouda/#respondTue, 20 Feb 2018 05:00:53 +0000http://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=148167Continue Reading]]>For the third time since 2005, researchers have parsed data from an E. coli O157: H7 outbreak traced to raw milk gouda cheese. For the third time, they have concluded the “60-day rule” isn’t long enough to ensure dangerous bacteria in unpasteurized gouda have died.

This time around the scientists did more than publish the information, though. They are telling the government that the 1950s-vintage 60-day rule needs to be revisited because it is obsolete when viewed under 21st Century microscopes.

The antiquated rule “assumed that any pathogens present would die off over time in an environment of low pH, low water activity, and high salt and the presence of competitive microflora in the cheese,” according to the most recent research report.

“However, these assumptions were made before E. coli O157: H7, Listeria monocytogenes, and Salmonella were recognized as common foodborne pathogens and before evidence had accumulated regarding the ability of these pathogens to tolerate these conditions.

“Hard and semihard cheeses have long been considered a lower risk to public health than soft and semisoft cheeses, but further evaluation is warranted for Gouda cheese in particular, given recurrent outbreaks associated with this semihard variety.”

Two of the outbreaks referenced in the research published in the February edition of the Journal of Food Protection occurred in Canada, in 2002-03 and 2013. The first sickened at least 13 people. The 2013 outbreak sickened 29 people, killing one.

The third outbreak was in 2010, with 41 people across the Southwestern United States confirmed with E. coli O157: H7 infections.

All three outbreaks were traced to gouda cheese made with unpasteurized, raw milk.

Outbreak investigations revealed live E. coli O157: H7 present in unopened gouda samples that were well past the 60-day aging requirement, according to the most recent research by scientists from numerous federal and provincial public health agencies in Canada.

Raw milk gouda tested during the investigation of the 2013 outbreak showed live E. coli present 306 days after it was produced.

“This finding is consistent with those from other outbreaks and microbiological studies of artificially contaminated cheeses that have revealed that pathogenic bacteria, including E. coli O157: H7, can survive in various varieties of cheese through production and the subsequent aging and storage periods at levels sufficient to cause human illness,” the Canadian research team reports in this month’s edition of the Journal.

The scientists also looked at the manufacturing practices at the cheese production facilities and found they were operating within the applicable laws and regulations.

“… no major deviations in cheese production and subsequent handling were noted in the outbreak presented herein or in the E. coli O157: H7 infection outbreak attributed to raw milk Gouda cheese in Canada in 2002. The implicated cheeses were produced in accordance with regulated microbiological and aging requirements.”

Consequently, the scientists report, if E. coli is present in the raw milk used to make the cheese, it does not die during the minimum 60-day aging period. Instead, the potentially deadly pathogen can survive for five times that long in large enough numbers to cause infections in people who eat it.

South Dakota State University doctoral student Neha Neha, left, and professor Sanjeev Anand examine Listeria colonies, as part of research to improve Listeria risk assessment models. More robust risk assessment models will help food manufacturers enhance food safety protocols and thus protect consumers from foodborne illnesses. (Photo courtesy of South Dakota State University)

About 1,600 Americans become ill from eating foods contaminated with Listeria each year according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The pathogen’s recent influx in a variety of fresh, frozen and processed foods is reinforcing the importance of understanding how contamination occurs in processing plants.

A recent article by South Dakota State University’s Department of Dairy and Food Science examines the industry’s need for a more comprehensive approach in Listeria risk-assessment.

According to dairy science professor Sanjeev Anand, Listeria contamination has been traced to niches in food processing environment that provide safe harbor for the bacteria. For example, bacteria on the spout of an ice cream freezer in one commercial ice cream plant was identified as the source of Listeria contamination.

“Listeria is a cold-loving microorganism. Pasteurization and cooking kills Listeria, but the bacteria can grow at temperatures 40 degrees F and above in refrigerators and can even survive freezing,” according to the university’s report.

With the issue of cross contamination in manufacturing environments, researchers are working to determine how Listeria builds up in those settings, what characteristics make it possible, and how it resists cleaning efforts.

To examine the pathogen’s persistence, the scientists will conduct whole genome sequencing of the bacteria, with the goal of understanding the gene expression that leads to colonization.

It will also help them compare resident strains of Listeria, which have the ability to form resilient biofilms in the harborage sites and are difficult to eradicate.

]]>http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/02/south-dakota-scientists-target-listeria-in-food-processing-plants/feed/0EFSA: Home kitchen hygiene crucial to fight foodborne illnesshttp://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/02/efsa-home-kitchen-hygiene-crucial-to-fight-foodborne-illness/
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2018/02/efsa-home-kitchen-hygiene-crucial-to-fight-foodborne-illness/#respondTue, 13 Feb 2018 05:00:06 +0000http://www.foodsafetynews.com/?p=147815Continue Reading]]>Relatively minor gastrointestinal illnesses can be serious, even fatal, for people from risk groups including small children, pregnant women, very old people or people with weakened immune systems, prompting a reminder that kitchen hygiene is of vital importance.

In an effort to reduce the number of foodborne infections, the Member States of the European Union submit data on foodborne outbreaks every year to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The agency reports that food consumed in private homes was the source of 40 percent of the European outbreaks in 2016.

The recently released EFSA report on zoonoses — diseases that can be transmitted to humans from animals — and foodborne outbreaks in Europe in 2016 showed that 205 of the 521 “strong-evidence” outbreaks were caused by the consumption of food in private households. The next highest category were outbreaks caused by food in restaurants, etc., with 133 identified. Communal catering facilities, such as lunchrooms in schools, nursing homes and hospitals were found to be responsible for 87 outbreaks.

Outbreak investigations showed that the major sources of disease were meat and meat products, in particular poultry meat, which accounted for 126 outbreaks. Mixed food and buffet meals were responsible for 85 outbreaks, eggs and egg products for 72 outbreaks, fish and fisheries for 70 outbreaks, and milk and milk products for 45 outbreaks.

Although vegetables, fruits, cereals, sprouted seeds, herbs and spices and their products made a much less significant contribution to the outbreak situation in Europe with a total of 34 outbreaks, they should not be ignored, according tot the report..

Overall, Salmonella was the dominant pathogen reported by the EU Member States.

The risk of food-borne infections can be minimized through consistent compliance with the rules of good kitchen hygiene, according to the report.